Subscribe to Our Mailing List

St. Gregory Palamas and the Tradition of the Fathers

by Fr. George Florovsky

Following the Fathers...

"Following THE HOLY FATHERS" ... It was usual in the Ancient Church to
introduce doctrinal statements by phrases like this. The Decree
of Chalcedon opens precisely with these very words. The Seventh
Ecumenical Council introduces its decision concerning the Holy
Icons in a more elaborate way: "Following the Divinely
inspired teaching of the Holy Fathers and the Tradition of the
Catholic Church." The didaskalia of the Fathers
is the formal and normative term of reference.

Now, this was much more than just
an "appeal to antiquity." Indeed, the Church always
stresses the permanence of her faith through the ages, from the
very beginning. This identity, since the Apostolic times, is the
most conspicuous sign and token of right faith-always the same.
Yet, "antiquity" by itself is not an adequate proof of
the true faith. Moreover, the Christian message was obviously a
striking novelty" for the "ancient world," and,
indeed, a call to radical "renovation." The
"Old" has passed away, and everything has been
"made New." On the other hand, heresies could also
appeal to the past and invoke the authority of certain
"traditions." In fact, heresies were often lingering in
the past. [1] Archaic formulas can often be dangerously
misleading. Vincent of Lérins himself was fully aware of this
danger. It would suffice to quote this pathetic passage of his:
"And now, what an amazing reversal of the situation I the
authors of the same opinion are adjudged to be catholics, but the
followers-heretics; the masters are absolved, the disciples are
condemned; the writers of the books will be children of the
Kingdom, their followers will go to Gehenna" (Commonitorium,
cap. 6). Vincent had in mind, of course, St. Cyprian and the
Donatists. St. Cyprian himself faced the same situation.
"Antiquity" as such may happen to be Just an inveterate
prejudice: nam antiquitas sine veritate vetustas erroris est (Epist.
74). It is to say"old customs" as such do not
guarantee the truth. "Truth" is not just a
"habit."

The true tradition is only the
tradition of truth, traditio veritatis. This tradition,
according of St. Irenaeus, is grounded in, and secured by, that charisma
veritatis certum [secure charisma of truth], which has been
"deposited" in the Church from the very beginning and
has been preserved by the uninterrupted succession of episcopal
ministry. "Tradition" in the Church is not a continuity
of human memory, or a permanence of rites and habits. It is a
living traditiondepositum juvenescens, in the phrase
of St. Irenaeus. Accordingly, it cannot be counted inter
mortuas regulas [among dead rules]. Ultimately, tradition is
a continuity of the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit in the
Church, a continuity of Divine guidance and illumination. The
Church is not bound by the "letter." Rather, she is
constantly moved forth by the "Spirit." The same
Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, which "spake through the
Prophets," which guided the Apostles, is still continuously
guiding the Church into the fuller comprehension and
understanding of the Divine truth, from glory to glory.

"Following the Holy
Fathers" This is not a reference to some abstract
tradition, in formulas and propositions. It is primarily an
appeal to holy witnesses. Indeed, we appeal to the Apostles, and
not just to an abstract "Apostolicity." In the similar
manner do we refer to the Fathers. The witness of the Fathers
belongs, intrinsically and integrally, to the very structure of
Orthodox belief. The Church is equally committed to the kerygma
of the Apostles and to the dogma of the Fathers. We
may quote at this point an admirable ancient hymn (probably, from
the pen of St. Romanus the Melode). "Preserving the kerygma
of the Apostles and the dogmas of the Fathers, the Church has
sealed the one faith and wearing the tunic of truth she shapes
rightly the brocade of heavenly theology and praises the great
mystery of piety." [2]

The Mind of the Fathers

The Church is "Apostolic" indeed. But the Church is also
"Patristic." She is intrinsically "the Church of
the Fathers." These two "notes" cannot be
separated. Only by being "Patristic" is the Church
truly "Apostolic." The witness of the Fathers is much
more than simply a historic feature, a voice from the past. Let
us quote another hymn from the office of the Three Hierarchs.
"By the word of knowledge you have composed the dogmas which
the fisher men have established first in simple words, in
knowledge by the power of the Spirit, for thus our simple piety
had to acquire composition." There are, as it were, two
basic stages in the proclamation of the Christian faith.
"Our simple faith had to acquire composition." There
was an inner urge, an inner logic, an internal necessity, in this
transition from kerygma to dogma.Indeed,
the teaching of the Fathers, and the dogma of the Church, are
still the same "simple message" which has been once
delivered and deposited, once for ever, by the Apostles. But now
it is, as it were, properly and fully articulated. The Apostolic
preaching is kept alive in the Church, not only merely preserved.
In this sense, the teaching of the Fathers is a permanent
category of Christian existence, a constant and ultimate measure
and criterion of right faith. Fathers are not only witnesses of
the old faith, testes antiquitatis. They are rather
witnesses of the true faith, testes veritatis. "The
mind of the Fathers" is an intrinsic term of reference in
Orthodox theology, no less than the word of Holy Scripture, and
indeed never separated from it. As it has been well said,
"the Catholic Church of all ages is not merely a daughter of
the Church of the Fathersshe is and remains the Church
of the Fathers." [3]

The Existential Character of Patristic Theology

The main distinctive mark of
Patristic theology was its existential" character, if we may
use this current neologism. The Fathers theologized, as St.
Gregory of Nazianzus put it, "in the manner of the Apostles,
not in that of Aristotlealieutikos, ouk aristotelikos (Hom. 23.
12). Their theology was still a "message," a kerygma.
Their theology was still "kerygmatic theology,"
even if it was often logically arranged and supplied with
intellectual arguments. The ultimate reference was still to the
vision of faith, to spiritual knowledge and experience. Apart
from life in Christ theology carries no conviction and, if
separated from the life of faith, theology may degenerate into
empty dialectics, a vain polylogia,without any
spiritual consequence. Patristic theology was existentially
rooted in the decisive commitment of faith. It was not a
self-explanatory "discipline" which could be presented
argumentatively, that is aristotelikos, without any prior
spiritual engagement. In the age of theological strife and
incessant debates, the great Cappadocian Fathers formally
protested against the use of dialectics, of "Aristotelian
syllogisms," and endeavoured to refer theology back to the
vision of faith. Patristic theology could be only preached"
or "proclaimed"preached from the pulpit,
proclaimed also in the words of prayer and in the sacred rites,
and indeed manifested in the total structure of Christian life.
Theology of this kind can never be separated from the life of
prayer and from the exercise of virtue. "The climax of
purity is the beginning of theology," as St. John the
Klimakos puts it: Telos de hagneias hypotheosis theologias (Scala
Paradisi, grade 30).

On the other hand, theology of
this type is always, as it were, "propaideutic," since
its ultimate aim and purpose is to ascertain and to acknowledge
the Mystery of the Living God, and indeed to bear witness to it,
in word and deed. "Theology" is not an end in itself.
It is always but a way. Theology, and even the
"dogmas," present no more than an "intellectual
contour" of the revealed truth, and a "noetic"
testimony to it. Only in the act of faith is this
"contour" filled with content. Christological formulas
are fully meaningful only for those who have encountered the
Living Christ, and have received and acknowledged Him as God and
Saviour, and are dwelling by faith in Him, in His body, the
Church. In this sense, theology is never a self-explanatory
discipline. It is constantly appealing to the vision of faith.
"What we have seen and have heard we announce to
you." Apart from this "announcement" theological
formulas are empty and of no consequence. For the same reason
these formulas can never be taken "abstractly," that
is, out of total context of belief. It is misleading to single
out particular statements of the Fathers and to detach them from
the total perspective in which they have been actually uttered,
just as it is misleading to manipulate with detached quotations
from the Scripture. It is a dangerous habit "to
quote" the Fathers, that is, their isolated sayings and
phrases, outside of that concrete setting in which only they have
their full and proper meaning and are truly alive. "To
follow" the Fathers does not mean just "to
quote" them. "To follow" the Fathers means to
acquire their "mind," their phronema.

The Meaning of the "Age" of the Fathers

Now, we have reached the crucial
point. The name of "Church Fathers" is usually
restricted to the teachers of the Ancient Church. And it
is currently assumed that their authority depends upon their
"antiquity," upon their comparative nearness to the
"Primitive Church," to the initial "Age" of
the Church. Already St. Jerome had to contest this idea. Indeed,
there was no decrease of "authority," and no decrease
in the immediacy of spiritual competence and knowledge, in the
course of Christian history. In fact, however, this idea of
"decrease" has strongly affected our modern theological
thinking. In fact, it is too often assumed, consciously or
unconsciously, that the Early Church was, as it were, closer to
the spring of truth. As an admission of our own failure and
inadequacy, as an act of humble self-criticism, such an
assumption is sound and helpful. But it is dangerous to make
of it the starting point or basis of our "theology of Church
history," or even of our theology of the Church. Indeed,
the Age of the Apostles should retain its unique position. Yet,
it was just a beginning. It is widely assumed that the "Age
of the Fathers" has also ended, and accordingly it is
regarded just as an ancient formation, "antiquated" in
a sense and "archaic." The limit of the "Patristic
Age" is variously defined. It is usual to regard St. John of
Damascus as the "last Father" in the East, and St.
Gregory the Dialogos or Isidore of Seville as "the
last" in the West. This periodization has been justly
contested in recent times. Should not, for instance, St. Theodore
of Studium, at least, be included among "the Fathers"?
Mabillon has suggested that Bernard of Clairvaux, the Doctor
mellifluous, was "the last of the Fathers, and surely not
unequal to the earlier ones." [4] Actually, it is more than
a question of periodization. From the Western point of view
"the Age of the Fathers" has been succeeded, and indeed
superseded, by "the Age of the Schoolmen," which was an
essential step forward. Since the rise of Scholasticism
"Patristic theology" has been antiquated, has become
actually a "past age," a kind of archaic prelude. This
point of view, legitimate for the West, has been, most
unfortunately, accepted also by many in the East, blindly and
uncritically. Accordingly, one has to face the alternative. Either
one has to regret the "backwardness" of the East
which never developed any "Scholasticism" of its own. Or
one should retire into the "Ancient Age," in a more
or less archeological manner, and practice what has been wittily
described recently as a "theology of repetition." The
latter, in fact, is just a peculiar form of imitative
"scholasticism."

Now, it is not seldom suggested
that, probably, "the Age of the Fathers" has ended much
earlier than St. John of Damascus. Very often one does not
proceed further than the Age of Justinian, or even already the
Council of Chalcedon. Was not Leontius of Byzantium already
"the first of the Scholastics"? Psychologically, this
attitude is quite comprehensible, although it cannot be
theologically justified. Indeed, the Fathers of the Fourth
century are much more impressive, and their unique greatness
cannot be denied. Yet, the Church remained fully alive also after
Nicea and Chalcedon. The current overemphasis on the "first
five centuries" dangerously distorts theological vision, and
prevents the right understanding of the Chalcedonian dogma
itself. The decree of the Sixth Ecumenical Council is often
regarded as a kind of an "appendix" to Chalcedon,
interesting only for theological specialists, and the great
figure of St. Maximus the Confessor is almost completely ignored.
Accordingly, the theological significance of the Seventh
Ecumenical Council is dangerously obscured, and one is left to
wonder, why the Feast of Orthodoxy should be related to the
commemoration of the Church's victory over the Iconoclasts. Was
it not just a "ritualistic controversy"? We often
forget that the famous formula of the Consensus
quinquesaecularis [agreement of five centuries], that is,
actually, up to Chalcedon, was a Protestant formula, and
reflected a peculiar Protestant "theology of history."
It was a restrictive formula, as much as it seemed to be
too inclusive to those who wanted to be secluded in the Apostolic
Age. The point is, however, that the current Eastern formula of
"the Seven Ecumenical Councils" is hardly much better,
if it tends, as it usually does, to restrict or to limit
the Church's spiritual authority to the first eight centuries, as
if "the Golden Age" of Christianity has already passed
and we are now, probably, already in an Iron Age, much lower on
the scale of spiritual vigour and authority. Our theological
thinking has been dangerously affected by the pattern of
decay, adopted for the interpretation of Christian history in
the West since the Reformation. The fullness of the Church was
then interpreted in a static manner, and the attitude to
Antiquity has been accordingly distorted and misconstrued. After
all, it does not make much difference, whether we restrict the
normative authority of the Church to one century, or to five, or
to eight. There should he no restriction at all. Consequently,
there is no room for any "theology of repetition." The
Church is still fully authoritative as she has been in the ages
past, since the Spirit of Truth quickens her now no less
effectively as in the ancient times.

The Legacy of Byzantine Theology

One of the immediate results of
our careless periodization is that we simply ignore the legacy
of Byzantine theology. We are prepared, now more than only a
few decades ago, to admit the perennial authority of "the
Fathers," especially since the revival of Patristic studies
in the West. But we still tend to limit the scope of admission,
and obviously "Byzantine theologians" are not readily
counted among the "Fathers." We are inclined to
discriminate rather rigidly between
"Patristics"in a more or less narrow
senseand "Byzantinism." We are still inclined to
regard "Byzantinism" as an inferior sequel to the
Patristic Age. We have still doubts about its normative relevance
for theological thinking. Now, Byzantine theology was much more
than just a "repetition" of Patristic theology, nor was
that which was new in it of an inferior quality in comparison
with "Christian Antiquity." Indeed, Byzantine
theology was an organic continuation of the Patristic Age. Was
there any break? Has the ethos of the Eastern Orthodox
Church been ever changed, at a certain historic point or date,
which, however, has never been unanimously identified, so that
the "later" development was of lesser authority and
importance, if of any? This admission seems to be silently
implied in the restrictive commitment to the Seven Ecumenical
Councils. Then, St. Symeon the New Theologian and St. Gregory
Palamas are simply left out, and the great Hesychast Councils of
the fourteenth century are ignored and forgotten. What is their
position and authority in the Church?

Now, in fact, St. Symeon and St.
Gregory are still authoritative masters and inspirers of all
those who, in the Orthodox Church, are striving after perfection,
and are living the life of prayer and contemplation, whether in
the surviving monastic communities, or in the solitude of the
desert, and even in the world. These faithful people are not
aware of any alleged "break" between
"Patristics" and "Byzantinism." The Philokalia,this great encyclopaedia of Eastern piety, which includes
writings of many centuries, is, in our own days, increasingly
becoming the manual of guidance and instruction for all those who
are eager to practice Orthodoxy in our contemporary
situation. The authority of its compiler, St. Nicodemus of the
Holy Mount, has been recently recognized and enhanced by his
formal canonization in the Church. In this sense, we are bound to
say, "the Age of the Fathers" still continues in
"the Worshipping Church." Should it not continue also
in our theological pursuit and study, research and instruction?
Should we not recover "the mind of the Fathers" also in
our theological thinking and teaching? To recover it, indeed, not
as an archaic manner or pose, and not just as a venerable relic,
but as an existential attitude, as a spiritual
orientation. Only in this way can our theology be
reintegrated into the fullness of our Christian existence. It is
not enough to keep a "Byzantine Liturgy," as we do, to
restore Byzantine iconography and Byzantine music, as we are
still reluctant to do consistently, and to practice certain
Byzantine modes of devotion. One has to go to the very roots of
this traditional "piety," and to recover the
"Patristic mind . Otherwise we may be in danger of being
inwardly splitas many in our midst actually
arebetween the "traditional" forms of
"piety" and a very untraditional habit of theological
thinking. It is a real danger. As "worshippers" we are
still in "the tradition of the Fathers." Should we not
stand, conscientiously and avowedly, in the same tradition also
as "theologians," as witnesses and teachers of
Orthodoxy? Can we retain our integrity in any other way?

St. Gregory Palamas and Theosis

All these preliminary considerations are highly relevant for our immediate purpose.
What is the theological legacy of St. Gregory Palamas? St.
Gregory was not a speculative theologian. He was a monk and a
bishop. He was not concerned about abstract problems of
philosophy, although he was well trained in this field too. He
was concerned solely with problems of Christian existence. As a
theologian, he was simply an interpreter of the spiritual
experience of the Church. Almost all his writings, except
probably his homilies, were occasional writings. He was wrestling
with the problems of his own time. And it was a critical time, an
age of controversy and anxiety. Indeed, it was also an age of
spiritual renewal.

St. Gregory was suspected of
subversive innovations by his enemies in his own time. This
charge is still maintained against him in the West. In fact,
however, St. Gregory was deeply rooted in tradition. It is not
difficult to trace most of his views and motives back to the
Cappadocian Fathers and to St. Maximus the Confessor, who was, by
the way, one of the most popular masters of Byzantine thought and
devotion. Indeed, St. Gregory was also intimately acquainted with
the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius. He was rooted in the tradition.
Yet, in no sense was his theology just a "theology of
repetition." It was a creative extension of ancient
tradition. Its starting point was Life in Christ.

Of all themes of St. Gregory's
theology let us single out but one, the crucial one, and the most
controversial. What is the basic character of Christian
existence? The ultimate aim and purpose of human life was defined
in the Patristic tradition as theosis [divinization]. The
term is rather offensive for the modern ear. It cannot be
adequately rendered in any modern language, nor even in Latin.
Even in Greek it is rather heavy and pretentious. Indeed, it is a
daring word. The meaning of the word is, however, simple and
lucid. It was one of the crucial terms in the Patristic
vocabulary. It would suffice to quote at this point but St.
Athanasius. Gegonen gar anthropos, hin hemas en heauto
theopoiese. [He became man in order to divinize us in Himself
(Ad Adelphium 4)]. Autos gar enenthropesen, hina hemeis
theopoiethomen. [He became man in order that we might be
divinized (De Incarnatione 54)]. St. Athanasius actually
resumes here the favourite idea of St. Irenaeus: qui propter
immensam dilectionem suam factus est quod sumus nos, uti nos
perficeret esse quod est ipse. [Who, through his immense love
became what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is
Himself (Adv. Haeres. V, Praefatio)]. It was the common
conviction of the Greek Fathers. One can quote at length St.
Gregory of Nazianzus. St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Cyril of
Alexandria, St. Maximus, and indeed St. Symeon the New
Theologian. Man ever remains what he is, that is, creature. But
he is promised and granted, in Christ Jesus, the Word become man,
an intimate sharing in what is Divine: Life Everlasting and
incorruptible. The main characteristic of theosis is,
according to the Fathers, precisely "immortality" or
"incorruption." For God alone "has
immortality"ho monos echon athanasian (I Tim.
6:16). But man now is admitted into an intimate
"communion" with God, through Christ and by the power
of the Holy Spirit. And this is much more than just a
'moral" communion, and much more than just a human
perfection. Only the word theosis can render adequately
the uniqueness of the promise and offer. The term theosis is
indeed quite embarrassing, if we would think in
"ontological" categories. Indeed, man simply cannot
"become" god. But the Fathers were thinking in
"personal" terms, and the mystery of personal communion
was involved at this point. Theosis meant a personal
encounter. It is that intimate intercourse of man with God,
in which the whole of human existence is, as it were, permeated
by the Divine Presence. [5]

Yet, the problem remains: How can
even this intercourse be compatible with the Divine
Transcendance? And this is the crucial point. Does man really
encounter God, in this present life on earth? Does man encounter
God, truly and verily, in his present life of prayer? Or, is
there no more than an actio in distans?The common
claim of the Eastern Fathers was that in his devotional ascent
man actually encounters God and beholds His eternal Glory. Now,
how is it possible, if God "abides in the light
unapproachable"? The paradox was especially sharp in the
Eastern theology, which has been always committed to the belief
that God was absolutely "incomprehensible"akataleptosand
unknowable in His nature or essence. This conviction was
powerfully expressed by the Cappadocian Fathers, especially in
their struggle against Eunomius, and also by St. John Chrysostom,
in his magnificent discourses Peri Akataleptou.Thus,
if God is absolutely "unapproachable" in His essence,
and accordingly His essence simply cannot be
"communicated," how can theosis be possible at all? "One
insults God who seeks to apprehend His essential being,"
says Chrysostom. Already in St. Athanasius we find a clear
distinction between God's very "essence" and His powers
and bounty: Kai en pasi men esti kata ten heautou agathoteta,
exo de ton panton palin esti kata ten idian physin. [He is in
everything by his love, but outside of everything by his own
nature (De Decretis II)].The same conception was
carefully elaborated by the Cappadocians. The "essence of
God" is absolutely inaccessible to man, says St. Basil (Adv.
Eunomium 1:14). We know God only in His actions, and
by His actions: Hemeis
de ek men ton energeion gnorizein legomen ton Theon hemon, te de
ousia prosengizein ouch hypischnoumetha hai men gar energeiai
autou pros hemas katabainousin, he de ousia autou menei
aprositos. [We say that we know our God from his energies
(activities), but we do not profess to approach his
essencefor his energies descend to us, but his essence
remains inaccessible (Epist. 234, ad Amphilochium)]. Yet,
it is a true knowledge, not just a conjecture or deduction: hai energeiai autoupros hemas
katabainousin. In the phrase of St. John of Damascus, these
actions or "energies" of God are the true revelation of
God Himself: he
theia ellampsis kai energeia (De Fide Orth. 1: 14). It
is a real presence, and not merely a certain praesentia
operativa, sicut agens adest ei in quod agit [as the actor is
present in the thing in which he acts]. This mysterious mode of
Divine Presence, in spite of the absolute transcendence of the
Divine Essence, passes all understanding. But it is no less
certain for that reason.

St. Gregory Palamas stands in an
ancient tradition at this point. In His "energies" the
Unapproachable God mysteriously approaches man. And this Divine
move effects encounter: proodos eis ta exo, in the phrase
of St. Maximus (Scholia in De Div. Nom., 1: 5).

St. Gregory begins with the
distinction between "grace" and "essence": he theia kai theopoios ellampsis kai
charis ouk ousia, all energeia estiTheou [the Divine and Divinizing
illumination and grace is not the essence, but the energy of God;
Capita Phys., Theol., etc., 68-9]. This basic distinction
was formally accepted and elaborated at the Great Councils in
Constantinople, 1341 and 1351. Those who would deny this
distinction were anathematized and excommunicated. The
anathematisms of the council of 651 were included in the rite for
the Sunday of Orthodoxy, in the Triodion. Orthodox theologians
are bound by this decision. The essence of God is absolutely amethekte
[incommunicable]. The source and the power of human theosis
is not the Divine essence, but the "Grace of God": theopoios
energeia, hes ta metechonta theountai, theia tis esti charis,
all ouch he physis tou theou [the divinizing energy, by
participation of which one is divinized, is a divine grace, but
in no way the essence of God; ibid. 92-3]. Charis is not
identical with the ousia. It is theia kai aktistos
charis kai energeia [Divine and uncreated Grace and Energy;
ibid., 69]. This distinction, however, does not imply or effect
division or separation. Nor is it just an "accident," oute
symbebekotos (ibid., 127). Energies "proceed" from
God and manifest His own Being. The term proienai [proceed] simply suggests diakrisin [distinction],
but not a division: ei kai dienenoche tes physeos, ou
diaspatai he tou Pneumatos charis [the grace of the Spirit is
different from the Substance, and yet not separated from it; Theophan,
p. 940].

Actually the whole teaching of
St. Gregory presupposes the action of the Personal God. God moves
toward man and embraces him by His own "grace" and
action, without leaving that phos aprositon [light unapproachable], in which He
eternally abides. The ultimate purpose of St. Gregory's
theological teaching was to defend the reality of Christian
experience. Salvation is more than forgiveness. It is a
genuine renewal of man. And this renewal is effected not by
the discharge, or release, of certain natural energies implied in
man's own creaturely being, but by the "energies" of
God Himself, who thereby encounters and encompasses man, and
admits him into communion with Himself. In fact, the teaching
of St. Gregory affects the whole system of theology, the whole
body of Christian doctrine. It starts with the clear distinction
between "nature" and "will" of God. This
distinction was also characteristic of the Eastern tradition, at
least since St. Athanasius. It may be asked at this point: Is
this distinction compatible with the "simplicity" of
God? Should we not rather regard all these distinctions as merely
logical conjectures, necessary for us, but ultimately without any
ontological significance? As a matter of fact, St. Gregory
Palamas was attacked by his opponents precisely from that point
of view. God's Being is simple, and in Him even all attributes
coincide. Already St. Augustine diverged at this point from the
Eastern tradition. Under Augustinian presuppositions the teaching
of St. Gregory is unacceptable and absurd. St. Gregory himself
anticipated the width of implications of his basic distinction.
If one does not accept it, he argued, then it would be impossible
to discern clearly between the "generation" of the Son
and "creation" of the world, both being the acts of
essence, and this would lead to utter confusion in the
Trinitarian doctrine. St. Gregory was quite formal at that point.

If according to the
delirious opponents and those who agree with them, the Divine
energy in no way differs from the Divine essence, then the
act of creating, which belongs to the will, will in no way
differ from generation (gennan)and procession
(ekporeuein),which belong to the essence. If
to create is no different from generation and procession,
then the creatures will in no way differ from the Begotten (gennematos)and the Projected (problematos). If such is the
case according to them, then both the Son of God and the Holy
Spirit will be no different from creatures, and the creatures
will all be both the begotten (gennemata)and
the projected (problemata)of God the Father,
and creation will be deified and God will be arrayed with the
creatures. For this reason the venerable Cyril, showing the
difference between God's essence and energy, says that to
generate belongs to the Divine nature, whereas to create
belongs to His Divine energy. This he shows clearly saying,
"nature and energy are not the same." If the Divine
essence in no way differs from the Divine energy, then to
beget (gennan)and to project (ekporeuein)will in no way differ from creating (poiein). God
the Father creates by the Son and in the Holy Spirit. Thus He
also begets and projects by the Son and in the Holy Spirit,
according to the opinion of the opponents and those who agree
with them. (Capita 96 and 97.)

St. Gregory quotes St. Cyril of
Alexandria. But St. Cyril at this point was simply repeating St.
Athanasius. St. Athanasius, in his refutation of Arianism,
formally stressed the ultimate difference between ousia [essence]
or physis [substance], on the one hand, and the boulesis
[will], on the other. God exists, and then He also acts.
There is a certain "necessity" in the Divine Being,
indeed not a necessity of compulsion, and no fatum,but
a necessity of being itself. God simply is what He is. But God's
will is eminently free. He in no sense is necessitated to do what
He does. Thus gennesis [generation] is always kata
physin [according to essence], but creation is a bouleseos
ergon [energy of the will] (Contra Arianos III. 64-6).
These two dimensions, that of being and that of acting, are
different, and must be clearly distinguished. Of course, this
distinction in no way compromises the "Divine
simplicity." Yet, it is a real distinction, and not just a
logical device. St. Gregory was fully aware of the crucial
importance of this distinction. At this point he was a true
successor of the great Athanasius and of the Cappadocian
hierarchs.

It has been recently suggested
that the theology of St. Gregory, should be described in modern
terms as an "existentialist theology." Indeed, it
differed radically from modern conceptions which are currently
denoted by this label. Yet, in any case, St. Gregory was
definitely opposed to all kinds of "essentialist
theologies" which fail to account for God's freedom, for the
dynamism of God's will, for the reality of Divine action. St.
Gregory would trace this trend back to Origen. It was the
predicament of the Greek impersonalist metaphysics. If there is
any room for Christian metaphysics at all, it must be a
metaphysics of persons. The starting point of St. Gregory's
theology was the history of salvation: on the larger
scale, the Biblical story, which consisted of Divine acts,
culminating in the Incarnation of the Word and His glorification
through the Cross and Resurrection; on the smaller scale, the
story of the Christian man, striving after perfection, and
ascending step by step, till he encounters God in the vision of
His glory. It was usual to describe the theology of St. Irenaeus
as a "theology of facts." With no lesser justification
we may describe also the theology of St. Gregory Palamas as a
"theology of facts."

In our own time, we are coming
more and more to the conviction that "theology of
facts" is the only sound Orthodox theology. It is Biblical.
It is Patristic. It is in complete conformity with the mind of
the Church.

In this connection we may regard
St. Gregory Palamas as our guide and teacher, in our endeavour to
theologize from the heart of the Church.

Endnotes

1. It has been recently suggested
that Gnostics were actually the first to invoke formally the
authority of an "Apostolic Tradition" and that it was
their usage which moved St. Irenaeus to elaborate his own
conception of Tradition. D. B. Reynders, "Paradosis: Le
proges de l'idee de tradition jusqu'a Saint Irenee," in Recherches
de Theologie ancienne et medievale, V (1933), Louvain,
155-191. In any case, Gnostics used to refer to
"tradition."

From Ch. 7 of The Collected Works of
Georges Florovsky, Vol. I, Bible, Church, Tradition: An
Eastern Orthodox View (Vaduz, Europa:
Buchervertriebsanstalt, 1987), pp. 105-120. This classic is now
out of print but still available.